Vectra 3D Simulation in Lower Eyelid Blepharoplasty: How Accurate is it?
Miranda RE., Matayoshi S.
Retrospective Study with a reported sample of 34, published in Aesthetic Plast Surg (2021) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Early human evidence such as case series or small samples is exploring possible benefits.
- Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
- Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
- Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
- Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
- Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.
- Study type
- Retrospective Study
- Journal
- Aesthetic Plast Surg (2021)
- Country
- United States
- Reported sample size
- 34
- Source database
- PubMed
- PMID
- 34786617
- DOI
- 10.1007/s00266-021-02661-1
Abstract (original English)
Estimating the volume of fat to be resected during lower lid blepharoplasty can be challenging. While the excess fat is clearly visible in the upright position, it retracts into the orbital cavity when the patient is in decubitus. Several tools have been developed to predict the volume required for adequate outcomes and to reduce the risk of complications. Among these, 3D photography, in addition to being noninvasive, radiation-free, portable and relatively inexpensive, can be used to make simulations. To assess the level of agreement between Vectra H1 camera simulations and the outcome of lower eyelid blepharoplasties with volume removal based on these simulations. Preoperatively, a 3D camera and simulation software (Vectra H1, Canfield Imaging Systems) was used to estimate the fat pad volume to be resected from the lower eyelids in a sample of 35 patients (female n = 34) aged 55 years on average. Following the procedure, the patients were photographed at 1, 3 and 6 months and the outcome was compared to the simulation. The agreement between the simulated volume and the intraoperative volume was high. While the difference between the postoperative volume and the simulated volume decreased over time, at 6 months the actual volume was still 0.30 mL (right eye) and 0.24 mL (left eye) larger than the simulated volume. A systematic and significant difference was found between the s
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
- • Without an adequate control group, treatment effects cannot be separated from other factors.
Evidence level
Early human evidence such as case series or small samples is exploring possible benefits.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.